I wasn’t refering to “christians” generally speaking, but to the memebers of given churches.
Honnestly, I’ve a hard time understanding that someone could consider that for 1900 years, with some rare exceptions, christianity, its leaders, its members has been mistaken. That the beliefs they held were misleaded. That what they taught were lies or corrupted morals. That their teachings were erroneous. And nevertheless could think that very basis of all this mess (the scriptures) contains the fondamental truths and are to be considered as the basis of morals.
But taking this point of view which puzzles me as a given, it seems to me the only sensible choice would be to leave these misleaded organizations, study these books, pick and choose what seem relevant (I’m sorry to use these words, but I can’t see a way to build a religious philosophy based on the scriptures which makes sense without throwing away somewhat arbitrarily half of their content) and follow this new philosophy away from most of the established churches, either individualy or collectively.
Which would hardly be a new concept, anyway.
That’s irrelevant. Atheism isn’t a belief nor it involves belonging to an organization. I don’t feel an atheist is any more concerned with the crimes committed by another atheist than someone
who don’t believe in fortune telling is concerned with the crimes commited by other people who don’t believed in fortune telling.
Once again, I explicitely stated I was refering to the members of a communist party which supported stalinism or to the members of a chuch which commited crimes. Not to “communists” or “christians”.
Personnally accountable perhaps not, but if these actions are or were consistently are repeatedly negative and they choose so stick with this organization, it’s a form of endorsement. At the very least, they shouldn’t be surprised if the past/present actions of this organizations are thrown at their faces. That’s what usually happens. Some christians also assume that because their organization is a religion, it should be in some ways immune to such reproachs based on its past, which are commonplace when other kind of organizations are involved.
But ** what ** are these premises and objectives? Not only they changed enormously over the centuries, but they still change from place to place, church to church, community to community, individual to individual. How are we supposed to know what are the actual objectives of these believers when we heard some much contradictory statements?
(actually, the premises and objectives would probably be something like there’s a creator god and I want to join him in the afterlife, so the question would be more about the actions which affect the material world and more importantly other human beings.)
Yes. It puzzles me to. I was brought up in a catholic environment, so the christian faith made sense to, even after I became atheist. But the more time pass, the more I feel unable to put myself in christian shoes.
When facing people who didn’t think a lot about their faith, I can understand relatively easily. We tend to held many beliefs or references about which we don’t think a lot but accept as a given. These people have usually a superficial grasping of christianism, which include only little bits of the scriptures or theology, with a rather simple conception of god (which can range from a “peace and love Jesus” to a a vengeful and jealous god). It usually doesn’t hold much water but the attraction this faith can have when expressed in such easy terms is understandable, especially if you’ve been brought up with it.
But when I’m faced with people who have tought about their faith, be it litteralist/creationist or progressive and educated christians, I’m puzzled in the same way I would be facing a gang of prestidigitators, equilibrists and jongleurs trying hard to prevent a whole building from collapsing.
Things appear so much simpler when you throw god/gods out of the picture than I feel like I’m talking with someone who refuses to walk on the pavement and insists on walking on a tight rope 20 feets above the ground.
That’s another issue I have with christianism (and most other religions…I heard some creepy arguments made by people believing in reincarnation, for instance on this topic). It’s certainly very conforting to think wrongs suffered will be adressed in the afterlife, that you’ll be reunited with your loved ones, etc…But i believe it prevents some people from adressing the real issues we’re facing and from trying as hard as they would to face and solve them. To adress them ** now and here**, because there won’t be a “later and elsewhere”, and no being will handle them if we don’t.
It would seem an unreasonably bizarre move for me to leave the organisation (the Methodist Church) of which I am currently a member; the fellowship to which I belong is like a family, it’s also a place where my small contribution can be made a worthwhile part of something really useful to other people, I could not achieve this alone; furthermore, none of the members of my fellowship have ever been involved in the wholesale slaughter or Muslims or campaigns against homosexuality; we’re just an ordinary church, trying our best to have a positive effect.
Just because a corporation performs decidedly immoral acts doesn’t mean the employees should be held responsible. They should still have their jobs at a company sued into bankruptcy.
This(I think) is my point; I have a hard time accepting that the fundamental teachings and ways of Christ can be considered to be the basis of the mess; should not we be looking at historical actions and saying “that honestly didn’t appear to be consistent with the Christian way”, rather than accusing modern-day Christians of supporting or condoning actions which they don’t and wouldn’t condone?
One thing we have to remember is through much of those 1900 years, the general level of civilization was in decline. I don’t know the literacy rates pre-medieval times, but after the fall of the Roman Empire and before the invention of the printing press, very few people knew even how to read and write their native tongue, much less how to interpret the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible (and even today, most scholars disagree over portions of the original texts). Much of the later texts were written in Latin, another language that very few people outside of the Church heirarchy knew. Basically, the unwashed masses were spoonfed whatever tripe their clergyman wanted to tell them. The Church was the most powerful force in Europe, and this power corrupted it. The Crusades were most likely done for socioeconomic and political gains by those who held power. The rest of the people went along because naturally if the Church said it’s a good thing to do it must be because the people of the Church are so well-educated and can read and must have more insight than we do. So, yes, a lot of people honestly believed they were doing the work of God, because that’s what they were told by the very organization that ruled over them. Some of those could even read and write, but no one had produced a bible (AFAIK) at that point that wasn’t in a language that even many educated nobles were unable to read. And with the potential material gains, those who might have thought the whole situation wrong, were lured by their own dreams of wealth an power. Not to mention that often times laypeople were actually forbidden from reading the bible.
Granted, many atrocities occurred after literacy became commonplace (and the Bible was printed in common tongue), but once again we see cases where the people holding govermental power are the same people being judge, jury and executioner of the “sinners.” There were many in Salem who spoke out against the witch trials. Problem was, they in turn would be accused of being witches themselves. It took intervention from external sources to finally end them.